Oregon approves plan to enroll entire Elliott State Forest in carbon credit market

The Oregon State Land Board recently approved a plan to enroll the Elliott State Forest in the voluntary carbon credit market. The forest spans more than 80,000 acres in southwestern Oregon near Coos Bay. Oregon is the second state behind Michigan to dedicate an entire state forest to storing harmful carbon emissions and selling the credits. State officials say the plan will help the state meet its conservation and carbon emission goals, but it isn’t without controversy. Critics say the voluntary market lacks sufficient government oversight and regulation, and Oregon State University and the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians dropped out of the project late last year.

Brett Brownscombe is the Elliott State Research Forest transition director at the Oregon Department of State Lands. He joins us with more details about the plan.

Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.

Dave Miller: From the Gert Boyle Studio at OPB, this is Think Out Loud. I’m Dave Miller. The Oregon State Land Board recently approved a plan to sell carbon credits from the Elliott State Forest. It’s only the second time the state has done this with one of its entire state forests. State officials say the plan will help Oregon meet conservation and carbon emissions goals on 83,000 acres near Coos Bay. But it is not without controversy. Critics say the voluntary carbon market needs more oversight and regulation. Oregon State University and the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians dropped out of the management of the project late last year.

Brett Brownscombe is the Elliott State Research Forest transition director. He joins us now. It’s great to have you on Think Out Loud.

Brett Brownscombe: Thanks, Dave, great to be here to talk about another Oregon first.

Miller: Before we get to the specifics of this program, and research, and a lot of other things, what makes this land special?

Brownscombe: Yeah, thanks for that. The Elliott has a history like no other, and that’s because it’s really a place like no other. In the 1930s, it was created as Oregon’s first state forest, named after Oregon’s then state forester. Now, it’s become the state’s first state-owned research forest. I wanted to get into what it’s been before that. But I think, to many people, whether it’s tribes or non-tribal, the Elliott is a place of great biodiversity, great forest productivity, which is valuable for a lot of different uses, whether it’s timber or carbon sequestration. And it’s a place where a lot of people have come together over the last five-plus years to get beyond a history of unique conflict, and march forward with something that is a different animal in the form of a research forest. We’re really excited to be here.

Miller: You said you wanted to talk also about its history before the 1930s. What are you talking about?

Brownscombe: For a very long, long time, before it became a state forest, the Elliott landscape was home to Oregon’s Indigenous people, who actively used and shaped that landscape in many ways and for many purposes. Those Indigenous people were forced out, and that’s a whole history itself. But without getting into it, the point is that Indigenous people are still connected to the landscape that became the Elliott State Forest, and they remain very interested in what its future could mean for their interests and cultures.

As a state forest for many decades, the Elliott was dedicated to generating revenue for the Oregon Common School Fund. And that really drove how the forest was managed, which was largely focused on revenue from logging and selling timber. The Elliott was one of Oregon’s timber baskets, and as such it has its own place in the Oregon timber war history. When litigation over endangered species eventually brought timber sales to a halt on the Elliott, the forest was costing the state and its school fund money, rather than making money for the schools. Functionally, the state was – I imagine a straitjacket of sorts. The Elliott had become a cost albatross rather than a golden goose asset. And so I think you can probably remember the protests and the headlines back in that 2013-2018 period. No one, and I mean no one was happy about the situation.

So the idea of a research forest was really an absolute game changer. It allowed people to re-appreciate the Elliott as a public asset, to reimagine it as a forest that could support broad values instead of fostering division. And there’s a lot that’s gone on to get where we are today, by a lot of people who have put in a lot of work and, frankly, compromised. People saw and they continue to see very different things that are important to them, about the Elliott and about forests in general. Forest management conversations are generally values conversations, and people began to see that a publicly owned research forest offered them a pathway to achieve their values. Many diverse people and interests worked together for years to make it happen. Nobody would get everything they wanted, and everybody would have done things differently or somewhat differently if they were the only one in charge. But public land is a democracy, and it belongs to the people or to the public. People of diverse interests and backgrounds recognize that multiple values needed to be met for durability. Compromise was never a foul ball, and the outcome was something they ended up supporting.

Miller: I want to turn to the carbon credit piece here. The state has chosen to sell these credits on the voluntary market, as opposed to a state mandated one like California’s or Washington’s. My understanding is one big difference in those is a timescale. There is a 40-year minimum on this voluntary market that Oregon is now going to be a part of, but a 100-year carbon crediting plan in California. What went into that decision?

Brownscombe: Yeah, there is a difference between programs. I think it’s important to note that. But the regulatory and voluntary carbon project program or protocols are different. They have important requirements, they’re similar, and those include additionality, durability, permanence, monitoring and independent verification.

What drove the carbon conversation on the Elliott is a carbon project is just part of the carbon sequestration and climate approach on the Elliott State Research Forest. Much more carbon will be sequestered on the forest based on endangered species commitments, for example, than what is represented in the carbon project. That carbon would be sequestered independent of a carbon project, so no double dipping.

But overall, a forest carbon project provides multiple benefits as we see them, and that includes sequestering more carbon than it would otherwise happen, and contributing to the state and the public’s broader climate and carbon objectives. Adding a revenue stream to support research and operations, which is part of creating a diversified, and we believe, advantageous forest management business model, compared to just a single revenue stream from timber. We’re exploring what it looks like in the context of a real world managed forest to implement a carbon project and shape the future of carbon projects and climate science with real research.

Miller: How are you going to ensure that the carbon emissions reductions are real?

Brownscombe: There are monitoring requirements and verification requirements that we have to meet. So we will be doing on-the-ground forest tree stand inventory of carbon. That’ll be subject to a process of verification. And then we’ll be held to monitoring standards on whether that’s being met or exceeded on the ground. We have a rare and I think important opportunity on the Elliott.

We know that not everybody loves carbon projects. We’ve heard the concerns. But we feel like we’re in a position to do it right. We know the eyes will be upon us, and we know we need to get it right. And this is a public research forest. The data from what is happening on the Elliott will all be public, and we will be held to it.

Miller: In their letter last November, the Confederated tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians wrote about their concerns that big tracts of land are gonna be managed as “no-touch reserves where tribal people are excluded and ecocultural stewardship can’t be practiced.” What’s your response?

Brownscombe: Yeah, thanks Dave. This is something where I’m glad you asked the question, because we are in ongoing conversations with not just the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, but other Western Oregon federally-recognized tribes.

Our understanding is that we don’t have no-touch reserves on the Elliott. There’s different management approaches to the forest, and some involve conservation-focused approaches instead of timber-focused approaches. But in no case, are they going to be exclusionary to tribal people or Indigenous interests. In fact, we’ve advanced both in our forest management plan and other efforts, specific responses to the feedback we’ve gotten from tribes, and responses that enable Indigenous culture and stewardship in the next steps.

Miller: What are specific examples of cultural practices that go back thousands of years that will be allowed in the majority of this land, that is maybe primarily going to be a place where the trees are allowed to grow tall to store carbon? What will be allowed in terms of say burning or thinning? What could tribes do that they have done for thousands of years, and what can’t they do?

Brownscombe: I guess to be clear, the approach with a carbon project on the Elliott is not an “either timber or carbon,” it’s a “both/and.” So our intention is to do a carbon project, also in the context of advancing timber harvest and other recreation, other values. So specific to Indigenous interests and stewardship, for example, harvest and use of trees like red cedar for the purposes of canoe building, or plank housing, or bark – that’s something we’ve specifically built into the forest planning effort as something that tribes, and it’s exclusive to tribes, can go do on the forest. We have that permitted.

Burning and development of habitat for first foods and related cultural uses is also something we have built into our plans. It’s not a no-touch, let trees grow big everywhere approach on the Elliott. There will be areas where you have habitats that are more open and productive for huckleberries or other species that are also more productive for elk. So we’re very interested, and it’s part of the next steps on the forest management planning effort, to continue the conversations we’re currently involved in with tribes, and really develop, what does the approach look like around braiding Indigenous stewardship and research with the more traditional approaches of western forestry and science?

Miller: There’s also a question about money. They wrote this in their letter almost a year ago. And I should say, again, that as you noted, you’ve been dealing with a number of different federally recognized tribes. This came from the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Tribes: “If the Elliott is to serve as a model for other forests to follow, management and research on the Elliott must be financially self-sustaining without relying on outside sources of revenue. An Elliott that relies on infusions of state, federal, grant or foundation funding to maintain research and operations will be viewed as a failure.”

Will this forest, in the incarnation that was approved by the Department of State Lands, be self-sustaining?

Brownscombe: It will. And that’s been part of the north star foundational commitments to the forest ever since the land board came up with the game changer of the research forest idea. A lot’s happened in a year. We’re in ongoing conversations and for that particular tribe, if that’s still their position, we’d like to revisit and check. The self-sustaining principle though is something where we are taking an approach that is not just timber revenue oriented, but carbon revenue would be part of the business model, as well as other sources of funding. And we feel like within that context, the self-sustaining principle can be achieved.

Miller: Meanwhile, I just want to also run one of the concerns from Oregon State University by you. They have pulled out of their plans to manage the research forest, citing their own financial and research concerns. President Murphy wrote this last November: “OSU has been steadfast in its opposition to monetizing the carbon within the Elliott Forest in the early stages, for the clear and simple reason that the sale of the forests carbon would limit or interfere with the ability of OSU to conduct meaningful research that’s critical to addressing important sustainable management questions.”

She went on to basically say that they’re not opposed to entering the carbon market at some point, not opposed per se, but that it’s too early to do so now. What’s your response to this very specific question about the timing?

Brownscombe: I think this is another one where I’m glad you asked because the nature of OSU and Department of State Lands relationship is something that doesn’t always get characterized accurately. OSU did not withdraw or drop out. I think that’s something that’s been reported. We are still in regular and ongoing conversations with Oregon State. There was a request for a pause, and we feel like we’ve taken that, we’re in ongoing work with Oregon State, and tribes, and others. We’ve taken that pause as part of advancing a forest management plan.

We’re still working on the possible research and monitoring approaches on the Elliott, and OSU has added a great value over the last five years. Our understanding from OSU is that they still support the creation of a public research forest on state land. The conversation is more one of how OSUs’ role in research will look, not whether there will be one. So we’re discussing a variety of different research partnership models with Oregon State, and that includes one where Oregon State is collaborating as a research partner, along with tribes and other universities and research entities, as part of a consortium model rather than as the sole entity for research on the Forest.

Miller: Brett Brownscombe, thanks so much for joining us.

Brownscombe: Thanks, Dave. Happy to be here.

Miller: Brett Brownscombe is the Elliott State Research Forest transition director at the Oregon Department of State Lands.

Contact “Think Out Loud®”

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.